New Delhi: The AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala, VN Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi, who were sentenced to undergo four-year imprisonment in the Rs 66 crore disproportionate case involving former chief minister Jayalalithaa have moved the Supreme Court seeking review of the verdict.

All the three are serving sentence in Bengaluru jail.

On February 14, a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitav Roy had convicted them by reversing the Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting them in the DA case. As Jayalalithaa had died on December 5, 2016 the bench said the appeal insofar she has concerned has come to an end.

Seeking review of this verdict, Sasikala and two others said as they are not government servants, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to them and that they had been wrongly convicted even after the death of the public servant Jayalalithaa who was the A1 in this case.

They argued that once the main accused had expired the charges against them will not survive independently. They had not amassed wealth as held in the judgment as they were independent income tax assesses and had paid income tax during the relevant period.

They wanted the court to have a re-look at the verdict and set them at liberty.

The apex court had held that VK Sasikala and others had hatched one criminal conspiracy after other at Poes Garden to launder the ill-gotten wealth of Jayalalithaa for purchasing huge properties in the names of "masked fronts."

It had said that Jayalalithaa did not accommodate Sasikala at Poes Garden out of some "philanthropic urge" but with cold-blooded calculation to keep herself secure from any legal complications, which may arise from their criminal activities.

Coming down heavily on Sasikala and two others, the Bench said the fact that A2 to A4 did combine to constitute the firms to acquire huge tracts of land out of the funds provided by Jayalalithaa was also a clear index that their assemblage in the house of Jayalalithaa was not engendered by any philanthropic urge for friends.

They were residing with A1 without any blood relation between them to frame and further the criminal conspiracy to hold the assets of Jayalalithaa.

Referring to the plea of Sasikala and two others that they had independent income, the bench said the fact that A2 to A4 did combine to constitute the firms to acquire huge tracts of land out of the funds provided by Jayalalithaa also was a clear index that their assemblage in the Poes Garden house of Jayalalithaa was not engendered by any philanthropic urge for friends and their relations in need, rather to frame and further the criminal conspiracy to hold the assets of A1.

On the contention that they had filed income tax returns and were accepted and that there was no suppression of income, the Bench said that mere declaration of property in the income tax returns does not ipso facto connote that the same had been acquired from the known lawful sources of income.